Thread (37 messages) 37 messages, 11 authors, 2021-06-11

Re: [PATCH bpf-next 02/17] bpf: allow RCU-protected lookups to happen from bh context

From: Martin KaFai Lau <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-10 19:33:36
Also in: netdev

On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 12:33:11PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
XDP programs are called from a NAPI poll context, which means the RCU
reference liveness is ensured by local_bh_disable(). Add
rcu_read_lock_bh_held() as a condition to the RCU checks for map lookups so
lockdep understands that the dereferences are safe from inside *either* an
rcu_read_lock() section *or* a local_bh_disable() section. This is done in
preparation for removing the redundant rcu_read_lock()s from the drivers.

Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <redacted>
---
 kernel/bpf/hashtab.c  | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c  |  6 +++---
 kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c |  6 ++++--
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
index 6f6681b07364..72c58cc516a3 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
@@ -596,7 +596,8 @@ static void *__htab_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
 	struct htab_elem *l;
 	u32 hash, key_size;
 
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 
 	key_size = map->key_size;
 
@@ -989,7 +990,8 @@ static int htab_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
 		/* unknown flags */
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 
 	key_size = map->key_size;
 
@@ -1082,7 +1084,8 @@ static int htab_lru_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
 		/* unknown flags */
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 
 	key_size = map->key_size;
 
@@ -1148,7 +1151,8 @@ static int __htab_percpu_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
 		/* unknown flags */
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 
 	key_size = map->key_size;
 
@@ -1202,7 +1206,8 @@ static int __htab_lru_percpu_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
 		/* unknown flags */
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 
 	key_size = map->key_size;
 
@@ -1276,7 +1281,8 @@ static int htab_map_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
 	u32 hash, key_size;
 	int ret;
 
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 
 	key_size = map->key_size;
 
@@ -1311,7 +1317,8 @@ static int htab_lru_map_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
 	u32 hash, key_size;
 	int ret;
 
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 
 	key_size = map->key_size;
 
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index 544773970dbc..e880f6bb6f28 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
  */
 BPF_CALL_2(bpf_map_lookup_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key)
 {
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
There is a discrepancy in rcu_read_lock_trace_held() here but
I think the patch_map_ops_generic step in the verifier has skipped
these helper calls.  It is unrelated and can be addressed later
until it is needed.

Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <redacted>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 	return (unsigned long) map->ops->map_lookup_elem(map, key);
 }
 
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_map_lookup_elem_proto = {
 BPF_CALL_4(bpf_map_update_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key,
 	   void *, value, u64, flags)
 {
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 	return map->ops->map_update_elem(map, key, value, flags);
 }
 
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_map_update_elem_proto = {
 
 BPF_CALL_2(bpf_map_delete_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key)
 {
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 	return map->ops->map_delete_elem(map, key);
 }
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help